You know by now what CC convention lists as Cadillac’s Deadliest Sins, but many of you would beg to differ, outright liking the cars, or defending them based on personal experience or the context which produced them. I, for example, actually have some degree of appreciation–and outright preference–for a lot of front-drive ’80s GM products. And some might argue that chasing BMW and Mercedes shouldn’t be Cadillac’s mission in life, despite what the autorags have to say. So let’s take a chance to flip the discussion around and see which popular Cadillacs have been your least favorite and why some of the most unloved models have earned a place in your fantasy garage.

Would you, for instance, question what made the ’92-’98 Seville such an alleged return to form? Does an extended version of the outgoing Seville in a sharper suit with a less-than-reliable Northstar not strike you as formidable competition for the likes of the contemporary 540i? Would you nominate it as yet another Deadly Sin?

Or perhaps, would some of you argue that there’s a lot right about the ’86 Eldorado? After all, they were wieldy and quite comfortable cars. And nearly thirty years on, for those who leave shifting up to the car, does it at all seem like a step down from a Legend coupe? I know which car I’d like to go over a pot hole in with the A/C on, and it’s not the Honda (though I’d prefer one of the latter with velour and a five-speed over the Caddy).

These questions are worth asking, because the conversation about good and bad Cadillacs is all over the map. Sometimes, we’re in a tizzy because they didn’t match up with foreign competition. At others, we lament their handing the big-car torch to Lincoln’s still-large flagships in the ’80s.

But the experience of oozing around town in a front-drive unibody Caddy is just as isolated as it is in a Panther, and it’s not like they’d have prioritized development of their cars for the Autobahn or winding Alpine roads if they’d retained rear-wheel drive (thereby earning money from ’80s Yuppies).

Should we perhaps accept Cadillacs of the Deadly Sin-era for what they were? Or do you lay the blame on other models which you see as overrated?

If that was the case they would have ceased to exist long ago like the rest of the real luxury cars in this country. That’s not the way America has done things for a long, long time, right or wrong. Exclusivity and unobtainability didn’t help the great luxury marques survive the Great Depression. Packard wouldn’t have survived as long as they did without moving downmarket, though some would say it also put the final nail in their coffin.

I disagree, the key difference between Packard and Cadillac is that Packard wasn’t bolstered by high volume sales of Chevrolet and BOPs to keep it afloat. The only way Packard could survive was to go downmarket and tarnish their brand or pair up with a high volume automaker, which backfired badly. GM could have kept Cadillac as a loss leader selling fewer but more exclusive and much more expensive cars but it became too profitable to cash in the name in exchange for a few years of high profit volume from buyers who aspired to Cadillac when it was exclusive. If it weren’t for the success of art & design Cadillac could have easily been relegated to the history books right there with Packard.

While the sales of Chevrolet and BOP enabled GM to keep Cadillac afloat during some tough moments in the thirties, had Cadillac continued to bleed money, the corporation would have pulled the plug. Particularly in those days, GM expected divisions to maintain favorable P&L on an individual basis and would reorganize, spin off, or shutter divisions that didn’t.

That’s true, although there’s a distinction to be made between chasing profit and chasing volume. The low-volume, high-price, super-exclusive models were not profitable, something the Eldorado Brougham reaffirmed.

On the other hand, throughout the sixties, Cadillac managed to strike a balance between having a sizable volume (150,000 or so units a year) and keeping volume a little short of demand, which maintained higher transaction prices (and resale values, which was significant for lease customers even then).

The problem with sacrificing that to pursue volume is that entirely beyond whatever impact that may have on your brand prestige, it means you need to expand production capacity, which raises your overhead, tooling, and amortization costs and requires you to maintain higher volume or your per-unit profits will suffer. That was one of the reasons Cadillac was cautious about not expanding capacity too much: They didn’t want to incur a bunch of additional capital expenses and overhead costs that would harm their margins.

I think the decision to do an about-face on that point was ultimately a very serious mistake for Cadillac.

BMW’s US sales model is heavily dependent on exactly the same sort of easy financing and lease terms. $400 a month gets anyone into a 3 series. $600 opens the 5 series gate. That’s ignoring current bottom feeders like the X1, Mercedes-Benz CLA, and Audi A3.

Perhaps its just the enormous amount wealth in my area, but it seems like there are more Jaguars, Maseratis, and Teslas on the road than 7-series or A8s. Perhaps the german brands are becoming too common.

Having four other brands under it, GM could have afforded to continue making the equivalent of the V-12 and V-16 cars of the Thirties. And Cadillac would have been incredibly special. With postwar engine improvements, the 16 wouldn’t have been necessary anymore, and the 12 would have been there merely for affectation, but the modern V-8 would have powered the postwar classic Cadillac very nicely. Remember, at that point Rolls-Royce was still using a straight six, and nobody took points off for that.

The DeVille, Sixty Special, etc., class cars? Brand them as Buicks. Which would have moved Buick up a slight notch (to the point where they got their wrists slapped in the early 40’s with the Limiteds), giving a bit more space and more product differentiation between it and Oldsmobile.

This would have kept Cadillac on the same level and Bentley, Rolls-Royce and the grosser Mercedes. Something that Ford and Chrysler didn’t have, nor couldn’t do (Continental Mark II nonwithstanding).

Any time a steelworker can save up and afford a new Cadillac, it’s not a prestige luxury brand anymore. And GM was too caught up in the “more, more, more” frenzy when it came to annual sales. So they sold more Cadillacs and killed the car.

See, as mentioned above, that’s really not how GM has ever done business. Each division has been expected to be a “profit center,” which means it’s supposed to cover its own operating costs and make a profit. In the pre-Roger Smith days, the corporation would allot budgets and set certain policies, but GM was not fundamentally a top-down organization (the way, say, Chrysler was or Ford was before HFII took over) and their later attempts to become one did them no good at all.

As for exclusivity, again, there’s a difference between cheapening the product to pump up sales volume and trying to cater to the exclusive ultra-lux market. Cadillac has tried the latter several times and found it to be a money-loser. The Sixteen and Twelve were at least really impressive cars and you could argue that they had some value to the division as image-leaders, but the Eldorado Broughams didn’t really even manage that.

Exclusivity is the hallmark of luxury having to wait for delivery and having the only one around makes a car special never mind how good or bad it is how fast or not, Cadillac was always underpinned by the lesser GM brands, One wealthy local grazier I met reading power meters had sheds full of Bentleys and one Rolls Royce the RR had been really hard to acquire never mind all the money he had. New cars of any description were difficult to buy in NZ and people were used to waiting for delivery this guy waited years for that Silver Shadow yet he bought a lightly used Bentley with his woolcheck every year in the UK and had it shipped out.

Very true. Here in Vancouver, there is absolutely nothing special about a BMW, Audi or Mercedes Benz anymore. They are everywhere and if you want one, the stealership has what you want with easy financing.

The status symbols are no Ferrari’s and the like but even they are becoming commonplace.

Yesterday I saw a Pagani with a Chinese teenager behind the wheel. I wonder what’s next?

You must have something people really want to play that game. That way of thinking and their lack of customer service would have resulted in them rusting on the showroom floor,,,,which many did around the rear windows:)

I don’t know. Riding around in my dad’s 1975 Cadillac Coupe De Ville D’Elegance, i felt like a rock star. A 10 year old rock star, but a rock star nonetheless. It was so classy and awesome. The only thing I didn’t like is that the rear windows didn’t roll down.

The first time I didn’t like a Cadillac was the 1985 Fleetwood Brougham. It was not nearly as nice to me as the Lincoln Town Car.

I think Cadillac made a huge mistake with the look of the 1975-1980 Seville. It was a very nice car but looked like a Chevy. They could have easily made it look like a Cadillac while incorporating the rest of the car.

Sorry, for the reality check… I need not stand in a corner, I am not wrong in this case.

CARMINE

Posted July 17, 2014 at 12:01 AM

No they aren’t…….sigh, the Seville is a K-body car, not a X-body car like the Nova, several significant changes were made to the car to make the Seville, the cowl and floorpan were changed, the Seville rides on big car bolt pattern wheels, uses a Turbo 400, the Sevilles engine isn’t even really Oldsmobile, Cadillac purchased the 350 short block from Oldsmobile and assembled the engines themselves.

My 1975 Estate Wagon has leaf springs….it must be a Nova too, I had a Chrysler with rear leafs, that must have also been a Nova, I think you might be one to one of the greatest automotive conspiracies ever.

So, as someone else pointed out, they are as about the same as an Impala and a deVille, or a brain surgeon and a monkey, or a brain surgeon and yourself….

Nuts in Aloah

Posted July 17, 2014 at 3:31 AM

the first gen Seville was an X-body and expensive because of all the tooling they needed to alter just for it…

The Seville became the smallest and most expensive model in the lineup, turning Cadillac’s traditional marketing and pricing strategy upside down. In addition, imports were popular with a younger audience while Cadillac buyers were heavily slanted to the over-50 age group. The Seville was thus part of an attempt to rejuvenate the make’s image.

Full size design prototypes were created as early as winter of 1972-73 (wearing the tentative name “LaSalle”). Subsequent design prototypes looked more edgy (specifically a 1973 named LaScala which strangely hinted at the 1992 Seville).

Initially based on the rear-wheel drive X-body platform that underpinned the Chevrolet Nova (a unibody with a bolt-on subframe, common to both GM X and F bodies (Camaro/Firebird)), the Seville’s unibody and chassis were extensively re-engineered and upgraded from that humble origin and it was awarded the unique designation “K-body” (rather than “X-special” following the format of the A-special Chevrolet Monte Carlo/Pontiac Grand Prix and B-special Buick Riviera). Cadillac stylists added a crisp, angular body that set the tone for GM styling for the next decade, along with a wide-track stance giving car a substantial, premium appearance. A wide chrome grille flanked by quadruple rectangular headlamps with narrow parking and signal lamps just below filled the header panel, while small wrap-around rectangular tail lamps placed at the outermost corners of the rear gave the appearance of a lower, leaner, and wider car.

Don’t misunderstand, Seville was still a good car, my brother had one and I fixed the fuel injection on it. It used the Olds 350 with fuel injection instead of a carb. I worked at a Olds/Cadillac dealer in 1975 FYI.

Fred

Posted July 17, 2014 at 3:06 PM

If the first Seville was a Nova, then it should have been assembled on a Nova assembly line. The Cimarron was assembled on the Cavalier assembly line in Wisconsin (Janesville).

The truth is that Cadillac started with a Nova, but re-engineered it to a point where it became a K body, not an X body.

Billy Rockfish

Posted July 17, 2014 at 5:26 PM

Technically, Carmine is right . . . . it has many components BASED on an “X”, but the floorpan, cowl, wheelbase are exclusive to Seville over X’s of the day. And he’s right about Cadillac getting the short block from Olds but having the top end pretty much their own whereas it wasn’t until the ’80’s that Cadillac quietly started implementing complete Olds 307s for the RWD passenger cars beginning in 1986 as the HT 4100 was such an underpowered, unreliable turd pile.

It’s easy to lose sight of this point in retrospect, but when the Seville was first introduced, it did not look like a Chevrolet. The “sheer look,” as the designers termed it, was something GM introduced on the Seville and then applied to the downsized 1977 B-body lines. That sort of “styling trickle-down” was something GM actively cultivated pretty much from the time Harley Earl first set up Art & Colour.

But was that a good idea? Do you really want your Chevrolets to look like Cadillacs? An extreme example is Ford, who really shot themselves in the foot by making the 1991 Escort look too much like the 87-93 Mustangs, to where the 4cyl Mustang LX and the 2-door Escort looked scarily similar. Ended up tarnishing the Mustang, rather than boosting the Escort.

Well, the trickle-down effect does presuppose that the senior brand will continue to pioneer new styling idioms. Nonetheless, as I said, it was a strategy that GM had employed with great success for decades by the time of the 1977 B-bodies.

The problem was that (a) the original Seville overlapped the cheaper knockoffs more than was probably optimal — it didn’t do Seville sales any particular harm, but it did mean it was looking more than usually old hat by the time it was replaced, and (b) the Seville’s replacement went in such an over the top baroque direction that one could gently call an acquired taste, that was unlikely to appeal to younger buyers who could afford it, and that didn’t lend itself to mass market adaptation even if the look had gone over better.

I do agree, however, that modern automotive design has gotten bogged down in some odd and I think often misguided notions of brand identity. They’re based heavily on the longstanding German premium brand strategy of making all your sedans look mostly the same except in exterior size, but failing to grasp that the reason that strategy worked was that people wanted to be able to have the fancy brand, but finding the bigger versions impractical or unaffordable. That does not mean that buyers want all Fords (to use your example) or all Hyundais to look exactly the same except for size and minor detail, which is the logical disconnect.

That, incidentally, is my complaint about the new Mustang, which is a decent-looking car in vacuo, but is so obviously intended to “marry Mustang heritage with the contemporary design language of the new Mondeo/Fusion” (or some such marketing speak) that it feels self-conscious and unnecessarily anonymous.

My favorite Deadly Sin? The bustleback Seville. Hated by many, I still think it’s one of the sharpest (pun sort of intended) designs to come out of Detroit in the era, and it even spawned imitators in the Imperial and the fox Continental. Sure, most of the engines were tragic, so I’d only want an ’80 with the 368 that hadn’t been saddled with cylinder deactivation. But I’ve always loved those cars and always will.

Many of the others deserve Deadly Sin status. The Cimarron especially.

I don’t think they ever offered a factory vinyl roof on the 2nd gen Seville, most of them are slick tops, probably the highest percentage on non-vinyl roofed 80’s Cadillac, except for the Cimarron. There were dealer installed tops though.

Blame that one on the dealers. GM pointedly said (prior to the introduction of the Navigator) that any luxury SUV would be a GMC. Period.

Then the Navigator came out. And sold. And the Cadillac dealers started screaming bloody murder. Somewhat short sighted, because GM did have the right idea, but customers who wanted a luxury SUV didn’t feel that GMC was prestigious enough. And the dealers kept screaming about lost sales.

Proof? Look at the original Escalade. Properly panned, because it had something like twenty minutes development/conversion time from the GMC. Obviously, GM didn’t have a lot of pre-planning on this one. But the customer’s didn’t care, and the dealers stopped screaming. Now they just grumbled that it wasn’t good enough.

Well, actually, the story behind the original Escalade is similar to the Riviera back in the 60’s, the Denali was originally offered to Cadillac as a luxury full size SUV, Cadillac passed and GMC jumped all over the opportunity, so it became the Denali. Then the Navigator was a hit and Cadillac wanted the luxury SUV back, but I had already been introduced as the Denali. So Cadillac had to eat it and sell a car that was a copy of the car they originally declined.

Dave B

Posted July 17, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Always wondered about the Denali and it seeming hard to differentiate from a Cadillac. GMC has always been a bit of distraction at GM and it seems this has continued into the modern era.

Favorite Deadly Sin would be the Shrunken C’s from ’85: All I could want in a Cadillac under 200 inches long with real world 20 mpg highway. Shame about the HT4100 being such a mess (and relatively weak). Although from all that I know of that V8, the 4500 was so much better, so, in typical GM fashion, they got it right, just before they upsized them for ’89. But the ’89-93 are splendid cars as well.

Otherwise, I don’t think of them as THAT deadly, it’s more that they left the Brougham on a vine to die basically for traditional customers. Plus the ’86 Seville, surely should have been as distinctive as the ’88 Continental Sedan was (given the Continental probably saved money being on an extended Taurus chassis).

The main problem for me is that sometimes your everyday Deville, but especially the Calais, from 1965 onwards wasn’t all that much more special than an Electra 225 or Ninety Eight. Hell I’d say a 1965-68 Mercury Park Lane has a nicer interior than a Cadillac Calais. Volume chasing was Cadillac’s deadliest sin, and that had been in since the Mid 60’s, if not earlier.

Cadillac’s deadliest sins were the Cimmaron and the Catera. I trust there is no argument about those. Yet I find myself wanting a Catera every time I see one. Something about it appeals to me. Unfortunately, the problems with them are too expensive for me to be able to remedy.

My favorite Cadillacs overall, though, are the modern Art and Science models, particularly the CTS coupe. To me they got all the lines right, it’s not noted for being unreliable, it’s not a city block long, and it’s got great economy to go with its power. They hit the nail squarely with that one.

I was excited for the ATS at first, and I don’t want to call it a “Deadly Sin”, but its reception in the marketplace has sure been lukewarm.

I like the fourth-generation (’92-’97) Seville’s styling even though it had its issues.

The second-generation (’80-’85) Seville? Well – it was unique, even if the mix of themes was bizarre. Unfortunately, I can say the same about the Aztek…

I think we can all agree that the 4.1L V8 from the ’80s was junk.

The Catera was a lame duck as well – too bland and unreliable. They took “Germanic” literally, but too literally.

I’m going to nominate the fifth-generation (’98-’04) Seville a “Deadly Sin”. Sloth was the deadly sin here. Although Cadillac probably called it “all-new” (I might be wrong), it looked like a puffed-up version of the ’92-’97 – there wasn’t anything new or exciting about its styling. It wasn’t ugly, just plain. To add insult to injury, can you even tell a ’98 from an ’04? Were there any exterior changes during its run? I remember the commercials claiming that the STS was ready to go head-to-head with Germany’s finest, and the MagneRide was interesting – but by 2002, it was too little, too late. 2003 sales numbers were less than HALF of 1998’s. GM let the Seville rot on the vine. It’s telling that there were 137 Sevilles still on dealer lots by 2005, even though production ended in December 2003. I know they replaced it with the RWD STS in 2005, but again, too little, too late.

On the weekend, I arrived at Ottawa airport and the full-sized car I had reserved was not available, so I got an ATS with the 2.0 turbo motor.

All in all, it wasn’t a bad car but not for the money GM is asking for it, they can do a lot better. I can see why it sells poorly: it’s too darned small. The back seat is barely big enough for a 12 year old. Front passengers sit close together.

This is more of a Lexus IS kind of car but without the Lexus quality as the interior definitely was not in the $40k plus ballpark. The way I see it Cadillac needs to forget about competing with the Germans and Japanese and trying to beat them at their own game. For Caddy buyers, it’s all about size and show and it always has been. That’ why the Escalade sells sells well because of this.

You’re contradicting yourself. In nearly consecutive sentences you damn the ATS for being too small and not appealing to the traditional Caddy buyer, then say they have to reinvent themselves. Is your assertion that they have to reinvent themselves as what they once were, a luxury brand that doesn’t try to compete with the Germans and Japanese? Because that nearly killed them.

Also it’s supposed to be smaller. They needed a car a size class smaller than the CTS because they discovered that 5-series size for 3-series money isn’t necessarily a selling point. The 3-series buyer wants a car that size. If the interior isn’t as high quality as a Lexus IS, then that’s a legitimate problem. (I’ve not experienced either.)

Geeber

Posted July 17, 2014 at 9:24 AM

Whatever the faults of the new ATS (and I agree that the interior is too cramped and needs some upgraded materials), Cadillac simply cannot afford to ignore this market segment.

A big mistake with the ATS, in my opinion, is that Cadillac got too greedy with the price. Cadillac simply does not have the credibility to command comparable prices to its German competitors and Lexus. It needed to undercut them first.

By this point, the “traditional” Cadillac buyer either took his or her last ride in the back of a Cadillac hearse, or is whiling away the hours in a nursing home. That pool of buyers has been slowly diminishing since the mid-1980s, and now they are completely out of the market. Lincoln successfully appealed to them in the 1980s and 1990s with the Town Car, but demand for that car among retail customers eventually evaporated, too.

Outside of automotive websites, there is no widespread demand for a reincarnated 1976 Fleetwood Brougham. The remaining demand for that type of vehicle is well served by the current Escalade.

There were A LOT of those last 1998-2003 FWD Sevilles around on Cadillac lots, I remember them being advertised as “clearance” specials for about a year after they were out of production, there were a few left at the end that had already celebrated a 2nd birthday on the lot.

As far as I recall, the only difference between the early cars and the last cars was the new smooth Cadillac wreath & crest on the latter cars, and the OnStar antenna. These were nice cars, don’t get me wrong, and the STS did have some innovative features that made it quite a handler for a big FWD sedan with a big heavy engine over the front wheels.

Whoops – that’s what I get for downloading right from google. Hopefully this is the right one.

To add insult to injury supposedly the Chinese version had a much nicer interior.

calibrick

Posted July 16, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Are you sure that’s the interior you don’t like flowmotion? I think it looks terrific. I have a problem with the more recent Cadillac interiors because I don’t think you can get analog gauges anymore and all of those shiny surfaces are going to have fine hairline scratches down the road.

Canucknucklehead

Posted July 16, 2014 at 9:58 PM

This looks terrific? All I see is cheap plastic panels.

calibrick

Posted July 17, 2014 at 12:12 PM

I see leather, genuine wood supplied by Behr Corp. and plastic that’s the same as in the 90s Sevilles which was a high quality material.

The shapes broke away from the Aurora look and are pretty cool. So is the 3-spoker. Everything looks so easy to use and durable, unlike what I see in more modern Cadillac interiors. To each his own I guess.

137 ’03 Sevilles on dealer lots in ’05? Today’s equivalent would the Lincoln MKS. Take the already heavy, bloated current gen Ford Taurus and add a B-pillar upsweep and narrow Volvo-like tail lights (which makes the rear look even narrower), give it an interior no nicer than a loaded Taurus and price it at $54K MSRP and you’ve got a REAL white elephant. Having routine service on one of my Fords at Honolulu Ford six months ago, they had TWO 2011 Lincoln LS brand new (this was around December of ’13) priced at $28K to move ’em out. Last time I saw a leftover fire-sale priced turd of a car were ’07 and ’08 brand new Kia Amantis at San Leandro (Cal.) Kia . . . priced at $25K (MSRPs of $33-35K).

I assume you mean two 2011 MKS? The LS went out of production in ’06 (and was not a “turd of a car”).

The MKS was a bad idea from the start. I agree with your criticisms there–it’s not distinctive, not even really handsome, and has never had an identity of any sort. It sort of replaced the Town Car, but not really. Just like the MKZ sort of replaced the LS, but not really.

I will second Airman’s opinion on the CTS (although mine is a 2010 sedan). I love mine. Very distinctive, comfortable, capable, fast and fun to drive. It has all of the best Cadillac attributes of the past (save for imposing size and a cushy ride) while meeting the demands of today’s luxury car market.

But I’ve loved all of my Cadillacs. The 89-93 DeVilles (I had a ’91) took the best of old-school Cadillac cues, corrected the too-much downsizing of the 85-88 models, and put it in an attractive, nice-driving package.

The Northstar could qualify as a Deadly Sin for its headgasket and oil drinking flaws, but it was also a brilliant performer, powerful, mellifluous and surprisingly economical. I put more than 75,000 miles on a 2001 Seville, and while mine developed a drinking habit, I had no trouble with the headgaskets, and it sure was fun to give it the good-old Italian tuneup.

The second-generation Seville has plenty to recommend it for Deadly Sin status, although it appeals to me in a kitschy sort of way. Just be sure to get a 1980 model with the 368 (or an ’81 with the V8-6-4 deactivated), no vinyl roof, especially those godawful carriage tops, and alloy wheels instead of those tacky, rattly wire wheel covers. This one would do quite nicely:

Especially in that color combination, I thought these looked really sharp. Personally, I liked to kicked in rear look. Its definitely dated, but I’d like to tool around town blaring 80s music out of it.

Just because the ELR is a hybrid doesn’t make it a Prius. It may be Volt-based but at least it’s stylistically defined (I like it, looks like a smaller CTS coupe). I actually think it’s better differentiated from the Volt than the Lexus CT250h is from the Prius.

If the driving dynamic sucks, or feels identical to a Volt, then we have a DS contender on our hands for “coulda shoulda woulda” reasons.

Deadliest sins: HT4100 in the 82-85 Broughams and the Northstar. The 82-85 2-doors, DTS and RWD STS would be great hobby cars were it not for the engine issues. A pity, and think of the countless lost customers from those (far more than from the Catera and Cimarron).

Favorites: 53 Eldorado, 76-79 Seville and 77-92 full-size. What an incredible run, 15 years, 12 if you leave out the 77-79s.

If the new CTS had that diesel that the RAM 1500 got and analog gauges it would be a favorite too.

An in-house diesel from Cadillac coming soon? I sure hope not because it takes many more years to do a modern diesel than GM has had time to work on it. Maybe a re-worked one for Europe or the Escalade if it’s soon.

If it’s in-house, soon and for the US CTS I will go ahead right now and add this as third deadly sin, right behind the HT4100 and Northstar. Those were both rushed and look what happened. One was a pushrod V8!

With Johan de Nysschen (ex-Audi USA) at Cadillac now there will be enormous pressure to do it quick but GM is not VAG.

Unless you work in GM’s engine development center, you really don’t know how long they have been working on one, GM had a ready to go 4.5 litre turbodiesel V8 for the trucks that was ready to go but shelved and we really didn’t know much about the motor until AFTER it was put on hold, so there is no way of knowing if they haven’t been developing a diesel engine for the last several years.

calibrick

Posted July 17, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Instead of ping ponging guesses with you I Googled and found, from four months ago in Ward’s… “Leone (a chief engineer) admits a clean-sheet diesel program cannot be dialed up overnight. ‘It takes years to develop one and get it right and we’re going to get it right.'”

It was a relief to read that but the timing was pretty obvious since GM backed out of the JV with VM Motori back in 2009 and we are just seeing that unit in production now on the RAM. It’s pretty good but came from Motori they’ve been doing diesels, and good ones, for years. VMM is not the same as Fiat, which some people think, though Fiat owns them now.

What’s changed is Johan going to Cadillac, last week. I fear any minute now there will be a new performance chief with with a can-do attitude and “it’s ready!” outta his mouth.

Yes and like I said seeing something re-worked soon for a Cadillac in Europe is plausible, they need it for an easy volume grab. If the Opel engine is a FWD transverse design it won’t be easy to make it work in the RWD ATS, despite all of Cadillac’s past experience with that challenge.

That’s not going to work for US regs, too small. Heavy cars like a CTS need a relatively large displacement diesel to clear US emissions. That’s one reason you see a 2.0L 4-cylinder CDI in the 3-series and a 3.0L 6-cylinder in the 5-series. It’s not like the 4-cylinder diesel wouldn’t perform well enough in the 5, after all its standard engine is the 2.0L gas turbo.

Diesel technology is advancing rapidly despite what you hear. They may over come that and find better solutions for emissions. The US market is ready for diesels.

I still love the bustleback Seville! As a kid, it seemed the ultimate in daring luxury to me when it came out. My mother’s friend had a mint green one (no vinyl top) and I used to oooh and ahhh over it when she came over.

Of course it also had the diesel, so it most likely blew up a year or two later…

The Cimaron must be a deadly sin of the highest order,I’m surprised anyone was daft enough to buy one when it was obviously a tarted up Cavalier.
My favourite Cadillac? None really there was always a cheaper better looking car from many other manufacturers.Give me a 59 Pontiac or Mercury over a 59 Cadillac(and the price difference!)

2011 Cadillac DTS, Northstar sounds like sex when reved, give me heated front and rear seats, actually liked the Art and Science Design. Would have been on my short list for a used car when shopping the last time but a sedan wasn’t really practical.

The ’77-’80 DeVille/Fleetwood Brougham is another Greatest Hit, Reasonably downsized, yet still unquestionably a Cadillac complete with big block power. Then came ’81 with the V-8-6-4. A Greatest Hit became a Deadly Sin overnight.

The marque never was what most of us imagined; except for maybe a short time in the late 20’s and 30’s. The decline started after that with some peaks and valleys, mostly valleys. By the 80’s it was crashing and burning. The Cimmaron was the first sign everyone had given up. The SUV’s, station wagons and pickups was the final sign that the marque had a terminal case of schizophrenia.
I could have weathered the valleys between the peaks longer had customer service been a priority. There have been some memorable models along the way. Some good can be found in most of them,,,well before the very late 1980’s when the decline fell off a cliff. Today they look like any other Chevrolet and just like Chevrolet they make pickups, not limousines. Just an insignificant brand today.

3rd Generation Seville (87-91) is my least favorite DS. That vintage Eldorado is a close second. Both are just butt ugly! Favorite DS is 2nd Generation Seville. The bustleback made it unique though I think the Imperial did the whole package much better, design wise. I liked the updated Cimarron. Often wanted to find an 86-88 V6 Cimarron.

The thing about the Cimarron, which is at or near the top of the list for obvious reasons, is that it didn’t have to be a deadly sin. Had Cadillac given it the kind of makeover they did to turn the X-body Nova into the K-body Seville, the Cimarron could have been Cadillac’s equivalent of the Mercedes 190E. It probably wouldn’t have appealed to the same buyers, but the Seville demonstrated that there was a quite respectable market for a smaller-size Cadillac if it was reasonably well executed.

The idea that the Cimarron would be a serious competitor for even the E21 3-Series was probably hubris under the best of circumstances, not because the E21 or even the E30 was such an impossibly tough opponent or had no exploitable flaws, but simply because it was such a different kind of car than Cadillac otherwise built and because a lot of the things that BMW 3-Series fans of the time would have considered virtues would have bothered Cadillac buyers and vice versa. However, the 190E (excepting the Cosworth engined 2.3-16 and 2.5-16) didn’t have the sporty flair of a 3-Series either, but people bought it anyway on its own strengths.

Agreed. While I’m not sure how much handling you can squeeze out of the J-platform, they could at least have tried, maybe by having a unique independent rear suspension and other parts. Then create some unique front sheet metal and offer it with the V6 before it was available on other J cars, in fact tweak that six or turbo it or something. Inside, use the Olds/Buick dash rather than the Chevy. With a full set of analog gauges it actually looked kinda BMW-ish.

My understanding is that some of the non-U.S. J-bodies were made to handle rather well for the time — they were not necessarily better cars, but handling was not one of the major weaknesses. In any case, what I think would have mattered more would have been to build in a greater degree of refinement along with more power and a more “premium” interior. Had Cadillac done that and managed to give the exterior a bit of the flair of the contemporary Eldorado (which was a very popular car), the Cimarron would probably have done quite well and would not now be remembered as this unfortunate misguided exercise.

The ELR gets way to much “shade” thrown on it than it deserves, you read some blogs and you would swear that Cadillac making 1700 of these was the freaking apocalypse….there are like what? 900-1000 Cadillac dealerships in the US/Canada? oh now, that’s like 1.8 ELR’s at every dealership, holy crap, they must have to rent extra space, they’re stacking up like cordwood.

Besides, they’re making extra now because Hamtramck is going to be down for the next gen tool up Volt and other enhancements to the facility that are going to take place next year.

Its a $75K specialty luxury 2+2 electric coupe? How many did people think they were going to sell? Was the “blogosphere” thinking that the ELR was going to knock the F-Series off the top of the sales chart in its first 2 months on sale?

Having sat in an ELR, I can say its quite an exquisite piece, the interior and exterior are extremely nice and the car bristles with high technology.

What were the sales projections for the ELR? I don’t think anyone thought they would do huge volume, but I don’t think anyone thought they’d be selling in the double digits per month either. If that was actually Caddy’s goal then my mistake, you’re absolutely right and all the blogs need to stick a cork in it.

I figured they’d be able to sell at least 5k of them, if not more than that, in the first year. There’s plenty of rich people out there flying solo 90% of the time in aging hybrids who don’t really need/use the added functionality of a boxier hatch or sedan body. Surely a good chunk of them would welcome the chance of driving a car with better looks, better driving dynamics, more luxurious trimmings and the ability to run in pure electric mode at the expense of (unused) utility. Tesla sold 20k cars in the U.S. last year. That’s a crazy number. If they did that much, I thought the ELR could do a quarter of it for sure. I haven’t even seen an ELR on the streets yet, and I live in one of the biggest hybrid/EV markets in the country.

In any case, I hate that they’re not selling more. It’s an awesome car!

I think the ELR was a really cool car but I also wonder what its purpose was, other than GM yet again “reinventing” itself. Buyers in Cadillac’s heyday ponied up relatively big bucks for a car that was correctly perceived as much better than anything else around.

Cadillac is roomy, roadworthy, dignified and more than anything, unique. That is the problem with the brand: it’s lost its uniqueness. It’s nothing you couldn’t get at another store, so they sell on price. There is a $2500 discount on the ATS here now and I am sure the dealer would match it.

As a matter of fact, I went to GM Canada’s website and when I clicked “estimate payment” I got a pop-up that said, “Congratulations, you’ve won $1500 in lease cash.” They are desperate. That makes the ATS $350 a month all in. Cheap.

Leo

Posted July 17, 2014 at 12:13 AM

$350 sounds about comparable with a 3 series or C class I’m sure.
I think the ATS is nice and I’ve seen quite a few around but I think the most unique new Cadillac was the second gen CTS, particularly the coupe and wagon, specially the V versions, which are even better.
I think those two are really awesome cars that look great and had the performance to match, plus a manual if chosen.
The Germans can’t claim much close to that, unless you count the M3 but I think by that point the CTS was more 5 than 3 series.
Same with MB.
Still, I think the CTS is one of the best looking in that category. Don’t need to do a double take to know which model I’m looking at (that’s you BMW…)

Canucknucklehead

Posted July 17, 2014 at 7:16 AM

Unfortunately, as nice a little car as it is, the ATS is not selling in anywhere near the quantities the BMW 3 series generates. The CTS does better because it’s bigger-and in America, bigger is better.

I doubt the ATS will be on sale three years. BMW can’t build its 3 series fast enough. Cadillac can’t win at this game.

Geeber

Posted July 17, 2014 at 9:12 AM

In Harrisburg there are billboards touting $369-a-month lease deals for a brand-new BMW 3-Series. I don’t know what that is in Canadian dollars. I therefore wouldn’t necessarily ding Cadillac for offering $350-a-month lease deals on the ATS.

Canucknucklehead

Posted July 17, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Residuals tend to be lower in Canada due to the climate but cars are priced-and lease priced- to what the market will bear. Here are 328i with sport package is U$550 all in. Much more than in the USA because the 3 series is VERY popular in Canada. The ATS is NOT popular here and is priced accordingly. I can see myself getting one a few years, used.

I have seen a grand total of ONE ATS in Vancouver, and God’s honest truth it was driven by an old lady with a beehive hairdo.

John H

Posted July 17, 2014 at 6:16 PM

The ELR is effectively a halo car for Cadillac IMO, if they had differentiated it from the Volt with a larger engine and battery pack it would have justified the price, which is the only real criticism of the car as far as I can see.

Reports of Cadillac’s death have been greatly exaggerated. OK, I’ll grant you that “deadly sins” hurt one, even when they don’t actually kill. Caddy has made a lot of mistakes, some causing severe illness. Still, Caddy does live on, for now.

Packard went down market for a reason. Peerless, Pierce Arrow, Marmon and a few more went bust for a reason – the market for super-high end cars almost disappeared.

It’s possible Caddy could have survived as the American equivalent of RR with very high price and very low production. Even if profitable, I’m not sure that would have been in GM’s interest. I’m not sure how much of a halo effect an unattainable car has wrt the rest of the lineup, especially when you consider that such a lofty car would have required stand alone dealerships – e.g no Olds/Cadillac type dealers. Would GM really want to bother with hand made cars, selling a few thousand units a year? (Did RR really have any other option?)

If I had to pick a “deadly sin” I’d nominate the Escalade EXT. Caddy’s tendency from time to time is to slap the Caddy name on anything that seems to sell. I used to think this was a branding problem, for the make, but I now believe we live in an age where the model is the brand, not the make. People buying XTS sedans seem undaunted by the fact that Caddy was also making a PU (though that market seems to have dried up and the EXT is no longer) People buying sport wagons seem unfazed by Caddy rebadging SUVs from Chevrolet.

I agree on the issue of exclusivity. I think the quest for greater volume hurt, but not because they needed to try to be RR. Cheapening the product ultimately hurt a lot more.

The fundamental issue, though, and one that would not have been easily addressed, was a generational disconnect. Once the Baby Boom generation was old enough and making enough money to buy a luxury car, they turned up their noses at the traditional American luxury brands in a way those brands had a very hard time navigating. The trick was that what a lot of the Boomers wanted was again a different sort of car than Cadillac had ever offered before, not just a scaled-down big Cadillac.

That’s a tough one to tackle when you still have lots of mostly older buyers who are buying your existing formula in large numbers (which was the case in the early ’80s). By the time it became clear that audience was starting to diminish visibly, a lot of the opportunity to develop credibility with the younger generation had passed.

That is a tough situation. Boomers preferred a more Teutonic car rather than the traditional boulevard cruisers.

If my idea that the model is more important than the make has any merit, one way to tackle the problem would be to introduce a model targeted at a different generation of buyers. I think the older folks would not have rejected the SeVilles/DeVilles just because something else was being offered.

That was essentially what Cadillac did, but it really wasn’t until the early ’90s that the Seville got the kind of styling balance to bridge the trad Cadillac look with the kind of Teutonic vibe Boomers had come to value. The late ’80s Seville could be ordered with a surprisingly competent chassis, but didn’t have a lot of power and was still so encumbered by old-school Cadillac styling details and interior trim that it would have taken a very open-minded Boomer to even consider it.

Had Cadillac done in 1985–86 what they were able to do stylistically in the early ’90s, it might have helped a lot more. By the time they got to that point, they were so far off the map with younger buyers that it was really an uphill battle.

Dynamic88

Posted July 17, 2014 at 4:13 PM

I was thinking more like 1975 is when they should have done it. By then it was clear MB was taking some sales away, though not really selling to Boomers yet. The luxury car was being redefined. But it would have had to be a separate car – or at least appear so. As you say, different styling and a different aesthetic inside would be required.

John H

Posted July 17, 2014 at 6:32 PM

“The late ’80s Seville could be ordered with a surprisingly competent chassis”

This is something said about many GM cars, but it seems you had to be an enthusiast to know about it. How many normal motorists would have driven the normal version and said “no thanks”, when the ‘good’ version may have made a difference? Perhaps they should have given the standard suspension tune better body control and made the soft/mushy version the special package? Then again senior management make those sort of calls and I imagine there were plenty of old-school guys at Cadillac.

CARMINE

Posted July 17, 2014 at 6:48 PM

True that you had to know what a “Touring Suspension” option was in the 80’s to get a better handling Cadillac, though at the same time you could see how they were starting to integrate those handling packages into individual models, starting with the first Eldorado Touring Coupe in 1982-1985 there was an DeVille Touring Sedan and Touring Coupe in 1986-1987, interestingly the Eldorado Touring Coupe wasn’t continued initially on the downsized 1986 models, where one would have made sense, but it did return after the Seville Touring Sedan(STS) was introduced in 1989.

The thing is, Cadillac believed the Seville was an import fighter, although in retrospect I am extremely skeptical about that. (It appears to have been based on surveys of Seville buyers and the percentage who said they would otherwise have bought a luxury import.) The Seville sold well, but most of its sales were to people who liked Cadillacs, but were nervous after the OPEC embargo or who wanted something that didn’t require tugboats to maneuver.

To be entirely fair, the challenge Cadillac faced in 1975 was very different from the one the faced in 1985. In 1975, there weren’t yet many Boomers who could have afforded any Mercedes other than a well-used one, and the luxury car market was primarily people in their 40s and 50s. Had Cadillac really tailored the original Seville to cater to what would be the tastes of the Boomers in their ‘peak earning years,’ it might well have flopped.

A better point might have been 1980, when Cadillac could have begun shifting the Seville into a more genuinely import-fighting mold without sacrificing its previous success. That’s part of why the 1980 Seville ended up being much a miscue.

This is the car I would pick as one of Cadillac’s “deadly sins” – the 1976 Bicentennial Eldorado convertible.

The model was advertised as the much-ballyhooed “last American convertible” – and look what happened a few years later.

I also wouldn’t want to own or drive one, mainly because of the fact that there are no shoulder harnesses in the front seats, only lap belts – and I place a high premium on safety. No thank you, I’ll find another big land yacht with standard shoulder belts.

Are you sure you should even be typing that on a computer? You might hurt your fingers? How can you even drive any old car for that matter? Or even, walk out of the house? I mean…..an airplane engine might fall out of the sky and land on you. Oh no…..danger!!!

I place a high premium on safety?….on a car that…at least I’m assuming…. you aren’t going to drive as a daily driver…unless your Boss Hogg or The Rev. Don Magic Juan.

Guess what? None of the big convertibles from that era have shoulder belts. Some earliers ones don’t have any belts at all!!! GASP!!!!

Sorry. Guess your stuck in the panic room. Watch out for Forrest Whittaker.

In regards to the “last convertible” thing, at the time, when these were made, it was the last convertible, there was, at the time, impending roll over standards that many manufacturers thought were going to be enacted by the government, that combined with a large decline in convertible sales, spelled bad news for the convertible….hence every one elses “last” convertible Lincolns in 1967, AMC 1969, Chrysler in 1971 and Ford in 1973, plus all of GM’s last convertibles in 1975, no one would know that Jimmy Carter wouldn’t surrender the US to the USSR, gas wouldn’t hit $5/gal and Oil Embargos IV,V and VI never happened.

So by 1982, when Chrysler re-introduced the convertible, happier days were here again, but you can’t criticize Cadillac for a statement it made nearly a decade before it brought back a “convertible”, 8 years passed between the last Eldorados, which were factory and the 1984 Eldorado Biarritz convertible, which was factory sanctioned, but made by ASC.

Things happen, things change, remember when everyone thought that Return of the Jedi was the “last” Star Wars movie?

My buddy’s 1990 Corolla has those separate belts, where the lap belt is separate from the shoulder one so you need to buckle each one in opposite directions and the shoulder one is attached to the door so if you forget to unbuckle and open the door it’ll try to take you out…AND they have no tensioners so they are basically there so Toyota could say they included them.
I just buckle the lap, 1) it’s a hassle to do both and 2) no tensioners so what’s the point?
No airbags either. Just the padded blue dash to stop my head.

Point is…mainstream basic transportation for the masses in 1990 with the worst seatbelt system I’ve ever seen and no airbags to boot!

Deadliest sin I would say is failing to find a way to keep the big, Fleetwood Brougham style Cadillac relevant after the 1977-79 model. The big, beautiful 71-76 models as we know had some issues and Cadillac managed to downsize and deliver, apparently, similar ride, room, acceleration, and comfort in a smaller package for 1977. The downsized DeVille and Fleetwood sold well.

And then instead of continuing to update the car, they gradually decontented it inside (e.g. footrests for 78, quality interior trim-except the leather- for 93), gave it increasingly gutless engines through the 4100, and, when they realized it was continuing to sell, turning to the Olds 307 and a finicky E4ME Qjet instead of putting the L05 in (or, heaven forbid, an actual Cadillac V8 of similar size like the 368 with more HP and overdrive) for ’86/’87 along with ABS and traction control, and keeping the same 70s bench seats for 86-92 when they could have put in lumbar support, heat, etc as they finally did in 93. The 93 came out about 5 years too late and while attractive from some angles looks like a fat woman at Burger King from others (I have one). It, and even more, the 94-96 finally had the getup and go the car should have had 8 years before. People would have paid the damned gas guzzler tax. It would have crushed the Town Car. And maybe we would still have a traditional Cadillac available today. (I’m not a huge fan of the looks of the A/S Cadillac models but them vs the old Cadillac is an apples/oranges comparison; they aren’t remotely designed for the same purpose–one was the “best” American luxury sedan, the other is the “best” European luxury fighter made in America, one is Babe Ruth, the other wants to be Tim Howard).

My favorite Cadillac is the 1963-64 Fleetwood closely followed by the ’75-76 Sedan DeVille and ’58 Cadillac. Of course, I have soft spots for the wedding cake Eldo and the beautifully proportioned but neglected ’77-’92 RWD Fleetwoods.

I’ve had the same thought too, if they could have just kept making the 1980-1981 style Fleetwood, with improvements to technology, like fuel injection and overdrive transmissions, sort of like an American Grosser.

Right, and it doesn’t even need to be some crazy 8-speed with a 600 hp V8 like people keep suggesting. This is supposed to be the American Grosser, as you said. Just a 5 speed electronically controlled automatic with beautiful soft leather and real wood, courtesy lights, footrests, and chrome that can make contemporary 0-60 times and get mid-high 20s on the highway, has a controlled but soft ride, quiet V8 (or even 6 these days, but 8 is traditional) and smells like money when you get inside.

I have always believed the same thing. In 1985, GM could have had a really new Cadillac, a front engine, rear drive car with unit body, and most importantly, IRS, 4 wheel disks and ABS, with a good fuel injected V-8 to propel it. Heck, a Chevy small block with roller lifters would have done the job very cheaply. Keep the interior style that buyers want and let’em add a vinyl roof of they wanted. Just keep the brand. Make only one car, just offer it in a bunch of trim levels.

Yeah, I’m not against them making smaller cars to try to take some business away from BMW and MB. I understand. The A/S is not a bad idea to try to do that, and as bad as they were, I understand the idea of the Seville, Cimarron, and Catera in that context and I can’t fault Cadillac for trying, essentially, to diversify. I just wish we could still get a big, quiet, soft riding, American style luxury sedan with all the toppings and Cadillac would be the place to make it.

I’m frustrated because it would’ve been so easy for them to do that by 1985.

I like the Allante too, it has a strong 80’s vibe of money, right or wrong, it was an expensive car new, and they actually were pretty nice for the time, the dash was a light show when the car started up too, the dash was like a bank of supercomputers, we had an 87 on our lot when I worked at a Chevrolet dealer in the 90’s, it was traded in on a Corvette, I drove it a few times, it was a pretty nice car, it was the standard silver with a red interior that so many of the early Allantes seem to be.

Computer in the stone age (circa 1965) did put on light shows of sorts, but real supercomputers like the Control Data 7600 were just big boxes sitting on the floor with a lot of cooling systems surrounding them. My computer programs could keep them busy for hours.

CARMINE

Posted July 17, 2014 at 9:21 AM

The center stack of the Allante was rows and rows of identical sized black square buttons with a few thin dot matrix style displays in between for the radio, climate and trip computer, very techey looking for the time.

Fred

Posted July 17, 2014 at 9:33 AM

There were two display systems available (at least in 1990), one is digital, the other analog. The center stack was probably the same for both. While I have looked at used Allante’s in Chicago, I never road in one. The current XTS display is electronic and is reconfigurable. My ATS display is an electronic-analog display, which is not reconfigurable. There are not buttons on the center stack however, with most controls located in the touch screen or some touch sensitive areas below the screen.

The Allante’s dash is better looking than what the Seville/Eldorado got in 86, but the 84 Corvette dash is better yet.

It would have been a fantastic idea to reintroduce the 368, except for that whole pesky CAFE thing. That kept it consigned the history books. Sure people would have paid the gas guzzler tax to buy it, probably enough so that GM would have been slapped with monstrous fines when they didn’t meet the average. Probably the same reason why the 350 wasn’t offered until ’90.

Sucks but that’s the way it was in the 80’s. Paradoxically, if the Cimarron had sold better, it might have been a viable option.

Best: All the cars that were real Cadillacs, representing the best of American confidence, flash and freedom. Special, exclusive but attainable, very confident, and somewhat polarizing. Agree that the high volumes hurt a lot, but showcasing accomplishment as a trophy–no matter who you are or what you did well to earn the money–seems to me to be part of Cadillac’s all-American allure. Virtually everything they made through the 1970s would have met this criteria, though the high-point was in the 1950s and 1960s.

For the worst: The brand was declining slowly but steadily over time from the late 1960s, but plunged with the smaller motors and diesels in 1980. Among the sins: the Cimmaron was dreadful, horrible, unreliable enginesshrunken C and E bodies were botched (at least initially), pandering to a geriatric audience (DTS anyone?) and worst of all, being a fancy Chevy. The Escalade is such an overpriced Chevrolet that it is just embarrassing, and miles away from being a genuine flagship. Plus no “top dog” Cadillac, car or truck, should have a Chevy engine, no matter how good that powerplant it is–seriously, GM doesn’t have the capability to produce a world-class engine beyond the Chevy small block or Corporate V6s? Cadillac is fundamentally not an Autobahn stormer, so that seems misguided for the ATS. With few exceptions, the brand has been a dud as a true premium car for over 30 years.

Yet for as much as an “embarrassment” that it is, Cadillac is laughing all the way to the bank with every embarrassing Escalade that it sells, outselling every GL, Range Rover, LX, QX, Xsomething,on the market.

Carmine, Where in the world do you get these numbers?? More Escalades sold than Range Rovers?? Wait, you are the same fellow that thought GM sold millions of cars each month:) You had better lay off that Kool-Aid.
GM has not laughed on the way to the bank in years. Perhaps cried all the way home from the bank.

I explained that it was millions a year before, did you hit your inflated head again?

As for the sales figures, the Escalade has outsold the LARGE standard Range Rover(not the Sport, or the Evoque of Discovery) for years, probabably because most Range Rovers as ABSOLUTE GARBAGE that is constantly at the bottom of every quality survey that falls apart 2 years and is ready to be driven across the scales at the scrap yard by year 3.

Philhawk

Posted July 17, 2014 at 6:48 AM

Aren’t they now owned by the Indian company that makes that Tata Nano? I’m sure they’ll eventually make a Range Rover that will be reliable…wait, who am I kidding?

LeBaron

Posted July 17, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Carmine, I am not going to disagree with you on the Range Rover (Do not forget their crash test results haven’t been impressive in the past either.) but I am making that claim with actually having had some exposure to them. I have to watch you on your figures as you get carried away with the facts most of the time, but usually there is 25% truth in what you scream standing there in your Cadillac cheerleader outfit and pom poms while doing a jump kick screaming, “Yay Cadillac”. You have a high school mentality when it comes to discussing the cars you like. I am the most critical of the brands I like and see the successes and failures. You should give that a try sometime if you can handle the truth.

According to Wards, through May 2014, here are the sales for the larger luxury SUVs:
BMW X5:18,466
Mercedes ML: 18,049
Mercedes GL: 9,997
Lexus GX: 8,504
Range Rover Sport: 8,325
Cadillac Escalade + ESV: 7,441
Audi Q7: 7,006
Range Rover: 5,115
So Cadillac hardly has a commanding lead in the segment. I will agree that it is very popular as a livery vehicle, and Cadillac does good business with fleet sales. It has certainly trumped the other flagship of airport taxis: the Lincoln Navigator only sold 2,932 units during the same time period.

While corporate profits of any kind are “good,” there is a big difference between sustainable high margins (which Cadillac enjoyed across its entire range for years when it was truly the crown jewel of GM) versus cynical badge engineering for a quick buck. Imagine if Timex were to offer a Rolex version of an everyday wristwatch, with standard components dressed up with fancier surface materials. They could sell it for more than a Timex, but it is no Rolex.

I really wish Cadillac would make real Cadillacs again like they turned out in their heyday. For example, some of their show cars of recent years, like the Elmiraj, represent what a genuine Cadillac could and should be. That concept was stunning inside and out, with a unique (non-Chevy) 500 hp V8. Like all great Cadillacs of yore, the Elmiraj is slightly over-the-top (in a good way) with a commanding presence, which could never come from the German giants or from Asia.

If the Escalade is cynical badge engineering for a quick buck than what are Audi, Lexus and Infinitis examples of the same thing?

Also, you would need to remove about half the cars from that list, the Escalade also gets outsold by the Lexus RX(another cynical rebadge of Highlander, but hey, its OK when anyone but GM does it apparently), but the RX isn’t really in the same segment either.

The Escalade competes against the standard Range Rover (which is outsells), not the smaller Sport, the large “cynically badge engineered” Land Cruiser Lexus LX470, not the smaller “cynically badge engineered” GX/4Runner, neither the X5 and ML are really Escalade competitors either, since they aren’t full size, the GL has increased in sales since the last time I checked, it was one of the closest to the Escalade in sales before, I imagine that the GL’s increased have come in the last 24 months, when the Escalade was still building out the previous generation, lets see what the new Escalade does against it, but don’t kid yourself, when people think LARGE LUXURY SUV, they aren’t thinking of GL’s or GX’s, they think Escalade, the Escalade has brought back more “rep” to the Cadillac name than many of the other marketing efforts that Cadillac had tried in the last 15 years since the Escalades debut, extending beyond being a mere model in a line up and become part of pop culture in TV, movies and music.

LeBaron

Posted July 17, 2014 at 2:39 PM

You are very correct the RX is not in the same “segment” as the Escalade. My family has owned four RX’s and all you have to do is sit in one and feel the buttons, switches and leather to know the difference in it and an Escalade. And as for depreciation? Yeah, no comparison just as dependability and customer service. More Kool-Aid Carmine?

GN

Posted July 17, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Totally agree on the Lexus and Infiniti being just as cynically badge engineered. Would also argue that those products are not great for their respective brand images either, and that neither brand quite falls into the true luxury league. Ford is just as guilty too.

I think the Audi products, like most products from the VW group, do a better job of successfully hiding their common bits so they feel more like unique vehicles, rather than just trim variations of less expensive products. I think GM used to do this incredibly well, and part of their decline can be traced to the company moving away from this approach to less differentiated offerings that were cheaper to produce, but did not enhance (or even maintain) brand positioning. Pricing a brand in premium territory but not protecting the brand’s intrinsic value is a recipe for disaster over the long-term.

Large luxury SUVs as you define them are a very small group, and the Cadillac does do better in that narrower context. The problem is that the luxury SUV segment as a whole is much broader, and many affluent consumers associate the other brands (especially the Germans) as being the “real” luxury products since they are more unique.

I live in the North Shore suburbs of Chicago, which is an affluent area with Midwestern values (historically strong domestic bias), and it used to be a GM stronghold, and years ago Cadillacs were abundant (along with Buick and Oldsmobile). Today, all the the imported SUVs I listed are literally everywhere, whereas the Escalades are not at all common as personal use vehicles (they do go to the airport in herds though with passengers in back). The area has plenty of people with flashy taste and lots-o-money, and they are more than happy to buy into brand statements. The herd mentality is alive and well, as many of these buyers just want what their friends have. And for those who do want a big, traditional SUV, there are Suburbans and Denalis (and Lexus and Infinitis for that matter) sharing garages with luxury imports. The problem is that a lot of wealthy people who want a big SUV just don’t see the intrinsic value in the Caddy that would make it worth the extra money. And to me, that is a sin for what should be a great luxury brand.

LeBaron

Posted July 17, 2014 at 4:10 PM

If I were in the market for a large SUV it would be an easy decision; LX540. Technology, body integrity, fit and finish, comfort, dependability, resale value and CUSTOMER SERVICE make it a very easy decision.
If my only concern was performance the choice would be a German brand as they top Lexus in that department.
I am not sure what an Escalade could offer me.

When the 59 Cadillacs were new, I was in the last years of grade school and was probably just beginning to notice cars. At that time tail fins seemed normal. I liked the 59 Cadillacs, mostly the Sixty Special and Eldorado. Now tail fins seem outlandish.

The FWD DeVille’s in 1985 did not look quite right to me, and still don’t. After World War Two, the Deville’s became a very desirable Cadillac, particularly for those who wanted one when the time came that they could buy one. So the DeVille really needed to be done right. The Cimarron and Catera were of little real importance to Cadillac, except that the hope was for them to bring in younger, new buyers. I think that replacing the DTS with the XTS is an attempt by Cadillac to get deVille owners over the DeVille name.

At one time I thought I would like one of the Fleetwood Sixty Specials from the 71-76 era, but I drove one and did not like the size of the car. I did like my 2007 SRX with V8, which was a nice engine, but thirsty in the SRX. My ATS is much better on fuel, averaging near 30 MPG on long trips (26 overall at present-see the EPA owner reports, mine is the AWD).

For me, I’ve always liked all Cadillacs. I always find something unique to them. I really like what they symbolized for that generation that saw them as something to aspire to.
My grandfather had an Eldorado from the 79-85 generation. I always claimed that was my car though he sold it to a family member who later totaled it 🙁
I still have a key somewhere.
My grandfather has always liked Cadillacs so I guess that rubbed off on me.

I personally love the 1950s Cadillacs, specially the 1959 Eldorado Biarritz, one of my objects of lust and ambition. Throw in a 1957 Eldorado and 1967-70 Eldorado too.
I think the 1959 would be the only deadly sin to some, for the fins, which to me are gorgeous and a defining element of the time and the Caddy.

I also really like any Cadillac with the 500ci engine. It’s just so unique.
The second gen Seville is also growing on me and I’ve always liked the 79-85 Eldorado too.
Also like the Fleetwood Brougham from the early 90s with all the improvements, though I’d take any.
I’d also take any from the 1960s through early 70s.
So really, any big Cadillac.

Even some of the commenters said they’d take a late-Cimarron, so if even the Cimarron has takers, I think we can agree that all Cadillacs have redeeming qualities.

Surprised no one has mentioned the Allante.
I personally like it. The FWD is the only thing that turns me off some seeing as its competition was the SL, but even them, I think it’s a very attractive car and its story and somewhat exclusive nature is appealing.

I like the Allante quite a bit too, styling-wise. However they never really had a good engine. You had either the 4100 (garbage), the 4500 (weak for a car that was trying to compete with the Mercedes SL) or the Northstar (reliability gamble). By the time the Northstar was introduced the car was showing its age and had already been marginalized.

It would be a fun “vintage” weekend cruiser but I can understand why people didn’t flock to them as new cars.

Well, for the 4.5, it was tuned for the Allante, and not really that bad for a car designed primarily for the American market in the 55mph hey day, the Allantes 4.5 had 200hp and 270lb-ft of torque, the original Allante 4.1 boosted the hp/tq up to 170/235, again, considering the times and that the original 4100 had super weak 135/190 hp/tq ratings, not bad.

Remember a 1985 380SL was 155/195 hp/tq and even the hotter, later 560SL was 227/287 hp/tq in it’s final versions, the SL got really hot with the 322hp SL, leading us to get a 6 cylinder 300SL again, the fastest R107 according to the web was the “we never got it” 500SL.

I quite like the ’86 Seville,even though it is most definitely a DS. I said it before, perhaps if it had been marketed (and priced) as a replacement for the Cimmaron it might have been regarded as Greatest Sucess!

Or was Caddy’s “deadly sin” going upmarket? In 1903 the Caddy Model A sold for $750. The almost identical 1903 Ford Model A also sold for $750. (I’m sure everyone already knows the Ford/Cadillac historic connection) The Curved Dash Olds of the same year was selling for $650 and was considered a popularly priced car. 5 years later Henry would come out with his Model T, selling, initially, for $950.

There were of course more expensive cars in 1903, but $750 was still a lot of money. It wasn’t that Cadillac went up, it’s that Ford was able to go down — calling it downmarket isn’t quite fair because Ford essentially created a lot of the cheaper market with the later Model T — through mass production.

Well, I’m not sure I agree entirely. $750 was a lot of money, certainly, and working stiff couldn’t afford a car. But many other cars were selling for several times the price of a Caddy or Ford. Olds, the sales leader in those days was selling at $650, so I think it fair to call that the relatively lower end of the market, though I’m sure not rock bottom. At $750 both Cadillac and Ford had to be considered quite affordable, within the context of the market of the times.

It’s hard to compare the the market of 1903 with the market of today, or even the market as it would exist less than 10 years later. “upmarket” and “downmarket” are certainly relative terms.

You’re right that the market for low priced cars would expand wildly and quickly, and that Ford would create a lot of that market with it’s production efficiencies, and lower costs. But to the extent that we can talk about a mass market in 1903, I’d have to say Caddy certainly wasn’t “upmarket”. The reason I included the model T pricing, even though it comes 5 years later is that no one argues it was not a cheap car for the masses, and it was $200 more, though of course it would eventually come down quite a lot. It would be 1911 before Ford brought the price down below $750 (for the runabout).

I agree with you, Caddy didn’t go downmarket further, like Ford was able to do. I think that sort of reinforces my point though. As the market for cheap cars was expanding greatly, Caddy’s execs decided to take the brand upmarket. By 1908 the lowest price Caddy was selling at $2K. Both Caddy and Olds could have stayed at the lower end of the market and concentrated on production efficiency. (Particularly Olds, as they had already used a crude form of assembly line before Henry did)

The main point is simply that Caddy wasn’t always at the lofty pinnacle represented by the V-16/early 1930s cars. It started out nearer the lower end of the market, and moved up through medium to very high end. It came “downmarket” even in the 1920s if you consider the LaSalle, and downmarket even more in the ’40s/’50s. The idea that it should have occupied some RR-like niche market for ultra expensive extremely low volume cars is a mistake, I think. It’s a position Caddy rarely if ever occupied.

Deadly Sin: 2001 (2nd Gen) Escalade. I’m probably alone in this (edit…just got to read other comments…clearly not alone), since it sold like free IHOP pancakes, but to me it always was a cynical an effort at badge-engineering as the 1st year Cimmaron. It was an extra $20,000 for $300 worth of very unconvincing GM plasticrap thrown on a Tahoe. It’s Octomom on wheels.

While not world-class I would find this interior much more attractive than the new A&S interiors at the top of the thread. This is fairly minimal, the wood grain is not extreme, there are chrome bits that suggest quality, the interior is something other than grey, black, or tan, yet is also not 4 loud stripes or paisley. Yes, it kind of looks like a LeSabre interior.

What I mean to say is that this interior isn’t sh-t, it’s just rather ordinary. Once you get to peeling appliques, faux-“fancy” wood that looks the same as the Chevy wood, etc, then I think you’re in even more trouble than at this stage. Though Cadillac never really lost the nice leather, etc during the Brougham era.

As a former owner of a 1972 Coupe DeVille in the exact color pictured, I have to agree. On the inside, it was largely just 70s genericar.

Reading old reviews of that time period are interesting because the magazines were calling out Cadillac on this point. One even recommend the Chevy Caprice over the Cadillac because they were so similar.

Billy Rockfish

Posted July 17, 2014 at 5:15 PM

Similar 1969 Car and Driver article said the same thing about the 1969 Imperial that blindfolded, riding in back was exactly like a Plymouth Fury III. I do remember that in my youth, friends whose parents had ’71-’73 Caddies had interior hardware falling off all the time; buttons in the seat pleats, the strap assist that served as door handles inside for the Herculean big doors . . . .

Anything with the HT4100. Unless I am forgetting something really obscure, Cadillac had always provided a first-rate mechanical conveyance. The Cadillac V8 was an engine of legendary quality and durability. Even the V864 was more of a fumbled feature than a real deadly sin (think a Lean Burn on a Chrysler V8, something that could be disconnected or worked around).

With the HT4100, Cadillac for the first time built a shit engine. Generations of Cadillac owners had never had to worry about engine failure, but suddenly it became a widespread phenomenon. And, unlike the later Northstar (which had similar durability issues), at least the Northstar was a sparkling performer for the 50K that the original owner was likely to keep it before trading on a new car. When your Cadillac’s V8 is markedly inferior to your Chevy V8 in almost every respect, you have a problem.

I understand that governmental constraints have to enter into this discussion, particularly CAFE requirements. However, almost everyone else made it through CAFE with hardware far superior to the HT4100.

Agree. Sure, governmental constraints, but it would have been so much more cost-effective, I think, to just fix the issues with the 8-6-4 (they did, didn’t they? It stayed on the limousines through the ’84 model year) , or just adding overdrive to the all-8 368 and THM400, than to rush out the 4.1 L to try to meet CAFE requirements and destroy the brand’s reputation with most people just hitting then-traditional Cadillac purchasing age (45-50) c. 1980.

And indeed, the 307, Ford 302, Chevy 305 are not legendarily quick or exciting engines but Cadillac surely could have done better than to foist the 4.1 on people, especially in its bigger cars. Even if the engine itself somehow lasted, it wasn’t even adequate power in the 55 mph era for the RWD cars.

Supposedly snipping a wire to the computer would disable the variable-displacement feature, and allow the engine to run on all eight cylinders, like a regular 368 cid V-8. If you did that, the engine was fine.

CARMINE

Posted July 17, 2014 at 9:33 AM

You could lobotomize the modular displacement part of the engine management system without disturbing all the other functions, like HAL.

I’ve seen some 468’s with a toggle switch installed to turn the variable displacement function on and off.

Fred

Posted July 17, 2014 at 9:49 AM

The cylinder deactivation was done with solenoids, which had a short life time. If a solenoid failed, then the engine would be running on perhaps 3 or 5 cylinders, instead of 4 or 6.

Orrin

Posted July 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Right but I think they actually got it working for the 75 series between MY ’82-’84, pretty sure they were still sold with the variable displacement, they didn’t sell it just to have everyone snip it, they actually fixed the issue was my understanding, but for some reason decided to drop the 4.1 in the regular old SDV and Fleetwood instead.

CARMINE

Posted July 17, 2014 at 1:50 PM

The 4bbl no-4-6-8 368 was still available too on the Commercial Chassis through 1984, Cadillac probably should have kept the 368 as a back up option choice during the 4100/diesel era as a 3rd choice and pass the gas guzzler tax on to the customers.

I am not exactly sure what the real problems were with the 8-6-4, but I think it required a lot of maintenance. The real problem for Cadillac, aside from the bad press, was that the EPA gave them 1 MPG which did not go over big. The 4100 got them a 3 MPG improvement, or about 20%.

The 368 was solid, solid, solid being simply a de-stroked 472/500/425. It (1981 8–6-4) was the 1980 368 with the deactiviation. I think if Caddy stuck it out, working the bugs out, it may have been successful. The lousy rod-knocker, dog/boat anchor 4100 HT did more damage and drove away more loyal Caddy customers than would’ve been if they hung onto the 368. Perhaps GM/Caddy was shell-shocked by the first batch of lousy Olds Diesels and felt they had to try a different approach; I don’t know (a 455 crank in essentially a gasoline 350 V-8 does not a reliable diesel make.)

I think the rationale for the 4100 was that GM really seriously thought for a time in the late ’70s that the V-8 would be dead on everything except maybe the Corvette by 1985, dropped to meet rising CAFE standards. Cadillac did offer the bigger 4.1-liter version of the Buick V-6 for a bit as an option, but my guess is the division decided the idea of a future with only sixes and diesels was unpalatable and set out to come up with a small V-8 that would be as economical as the big V-6. My suspicion — I’ve never looked into it specifically — is that the cylinder deactivation system was sort of a stopgap while the 4100 was being developed.

CARMINE

Posted July 18, 2014 at 8:23 AM

I have a R&T article from about 1979 that talks about “Cadillacs future aluminum engine” it doesn’t give an specifics of displacement, other than saying “less than 5 litres”, the article states that this engine will probably be “the last American V8” ever…..dooooooom and glooooooooom. The article mostly talks about the tooling orders being placed and where the engine is going to be made.

HT 4100. A real POS. Rod-knocking, gasket blowing, hot running, real dog. A Plymouth flathead six with an anchor dragging aft could outrun one of these, and if you ever had the chance to drive one (I have), it was the comical sound of a V-8 sounding like you’re rushing along, but instead, you’re making a lot of noise just trying to get somewhere. I believe these things were something like 125-130 net horsepower with TBI; even the Band-Aid-for CAFE Buick 4.1 4-bbl had better net HP/torque figures than this shit-loaf of an “engine” . . . .

I think GM should’ve given a badge or award for every Caddy owner saddled with the HT 4100 if they got that engine to last to 50K. These things were abysmal . . . makes a gen 1 U.S. spec Hyundai Excel 1.5 engine seem like a Slant Six . . . .

I really like the downsized 77-79 DeVilles and late 70s square Sevilles.

When I was a kid, we got the NY Times on Sunday, and my dad was always floating the idea of driving to Potamkin Cadillac and buying one of their loss-leader Coupe DeVilles that they were constantly advertising on the back page of the Times…alas my mother put the kibosh on that, and the closest he ever got was an Olds 98. Now they both are well into their 70s and drive matching Kia Sportages. Oh, how times have changed.

“my dad was always floating the idea of driving into the city and picking up an apartment in a building on Park Avenue they were advertising in the real estate section of the Times. Alas, my mother put the kibosh and that, and the closest he ever got was a center hall colonial in New Rochelle. Now, they are both well into their 70s and live in a retirement community” Bummer.

To reply to Orrin’s comment…the thing you need to understand is that we lived in Ohio, and a trip to Potamkin would have been about 12 hours each way. That adds another layer of goofiness to it. Of course there was no Cadillac dealer on the west side of Cincinnati (still isn’t) but they did sell Cadillacs in Cincinnati, a drive to NY would have been over the top.

what killed Cadillac was the second round of downsizing in the 80s, and trying to come back by being a pseudo European car will never get it to its previous status. those who prefer European, prefer European.

Good point, Matt. Psuedo-European example; ’82-’85 Eldorado Touring Coupe. Monochromatic stuff on the car could’ve been quasi-continental, but the faux wood interior, bench seat and (worst of all) anemic, weak-shit, crummy 4.1 HT 4100 V-8 made it all fall apart in the then common half-assed trend that was General Motors back then. Their missions statement back in those days was, “Falling short of the mark . . . because our hick dealers and accountants want it that way!”

I think one of the best Cadillac years was 1968. Besides some minor drawbacks those cars had interiors that held together well with few rattles developing with age, nothing fell off the outside and the engine and transmissions were bulletproof. As a child I thought the stacked leaning headlamps were quickly dated and not attractive but they have grown on me in time.
I once owned a 73 and a 76 formal limousine. I liked the looks of both and while owning them found the 76 to have the most handsome exterior and interior. As I look back now I think the 73 has much more handsome lines.

In a nutshell? Being a big Cadillac fan, deadliest Caddy sins would be:

’82-’84 Four Cylinder Cimmaron. Piss poor execution; agricultural drivetrain; too similar to the cheaper GM J’s. By the time some semblance of distinction in styling and the V-6 came along, it was too little, too late. In fact, in retrospect, this Cavalier/J2000/Firenza/Skyhawk in a slutty dress should’ve been called LaSalle . . . a lower priced, less exclusive Cadillac. Or, best yet . . . not have introduced it at all and let Buick market an upmarket Skyhawk.

POS 4100 V-8. Caddy should’ve stuck with the 368 (destroked 472/500/425) with or without the early cylinder deactivation shutdown system (worked out the bugs) or just went with a SBC in the first place . . . .

Rudely downsized ’85-’87 Caddies with the 4.1 POS V-8. The ‘extended’ car that appeared in 1989 with a decently powered 4.5 V-8 (the lousy 4.1 with the bugs and lo-po worked out of it) should’ve been the downsized FWD car that was introduced in the spring of 1984 . . . . . in fact, it should’ve bowed with the 3.8 SFI that the Buick and Olds had.

Bustleback Sevilles. Really? What were they truly thinking? If they had to share platforms/mechanicals with the then current ’79-’85 Toronado/Riviera/Eldo, they should’ve stuck with the tried-and-true vertical C pillar roofline that became so popular with the rest of the GM line . . .

LaSalle would have been an interesting name for the Cimarron, and it could have distanced itself from the Cadillac nameplate itself. I always thought that if Cadillac was dead set on having smaller displacement motor than the 6.0 litre, they should have continued refining the fuel injected Oldsmobile 350 that had a good run in the Seville and 79 Eldorado,

Growing up I always thought the ’67 Cadillac in the lead picture was the perfect Cadillac in both hardtop and convertible form. Today I would probably argue the interiors were at their best in ’62 through ’66.

– ’55 Sixty Special – the old lady across the street had one in black, in the early 70s. Earl at his postwar best.
– ’57-8 Eldorado Brougham – fabulous excess. Just look at that chromed, truncated B-post.
– ’63 Sixty Special – A brougham before the Brougham Epoc, Beautifully detailed, and I like the front clip and the fins much better than the ’64. I could make the case that 1964 was the high point for postwar US luxury cars.
– ’67 Eldorado – Sleek. The purple Dinky Toy I had as a kid definitely adds points here.
– 70 DeVille Convertible. The last non-Eldorado Cadillac soft-top – a great summation of a great line.
– ’74 Fleetwood Brougham Talisman. Wonderfully wretched excess, and only the ’74 had consoles front and rear. A 2+2 Fleetwood. Would have loved to be a fly on the wall at those product planning meetings.

Sins:
– ’67-’68 non-Eldorados. The canted front and the mitered coke-bottle flanks were trying too hard. And the cheapening had begun.
– ’74-’76 C-Bodies. The retrofitted rectangular lights were unfortunate, the opera window on the sedans misguided, and the dash sported arguably the fakest fake wood ever.
– ’80 Seville. I liked the downsized Eldo; this was just silly.
– ’82 Cimarron. What do you say after you say you’re sorry?
– ’85-6 Shrunken Cs & Es – GMs greatest mis-read of the market, and the beginning of a long slide down. I never thought I’d see a tinny Cadillac until I saw these.

The Cimarron, Allante, Catera and XLR (not sure if someone mentioned this yet) all have one common characteristic in that they do not survive to a 2nd generation model. While the XLR may be considered a revival of the Allante, it is not a 2nd gen Allante. Since none of them become a 2nd gen model, they probably were not a great idea to begin with.

The current lineup has the SRX (based on a Chevy Equinox) leading in sales (56K for 2013), the ATS is 2nd at 38K, with the CTS and XTS at 32K and the Escalades at 22K. The first half of 2014 has the SRX leading, but the CTS is 2nd with a new sedan.

Something can be a good idea with less than stellar execution, which I’d argue is more the case with the Allante. The XLR is a curious one–it had Art & Science design cues, and was based on the Corvette, yet never made much noise. Not sure what went wrong there.

Also the SRX is not Equinox-based; it’s considerably bigger. Equinox is a platform twin of the Terrain, whereas the SRX is based on a variant of the Epsilon II platform (Regal, Lacrosse, Malibu, Impala, XTS). In theory, not using an SUV platform, it ought to be more car-like, which is a good thing in its market segment.

Well the current SRX does not look like an Equinox. After googling it Wiki says that it is based on the Epsilon II, but is unique. I never looked at the second generation SRX since its fuel consumption is not much better than the first generation. However I do see a lot of these around where I live.

Both the XLR and Allante did not sell at high volumes, probably for much the same reason, that there are very few who want something like that at the price level.

Of the Sins here thus far listed my favourites would be
1. the 59 cadillac with the flamboyant fins
2. the northstar, because i owned one for 6 years and despite lively use saw none of the issues people complain about. Sadly the 4T80E wasn’t the most efficent transaxle for it. Really it is hard to consider Northstar a sin, since it remained relevant for 18 years. Managed to get supercharged and turbocharged (latter by enthusiasts). A fitting end to the last in the long line of Cadillac V8s.
3. Second generation Seville because its rear wants to look in the spirit of the 20s or 30s and in my mind it actually pulls it off it off in a classy way completely unlike the 80s.
4. the Allante. Just about the only 80s Cadillac design that actually managed to get out of the 80s. and for the final year it got the Northstar which gave it the performance it wanted and deserved. Sadly i don’t think GM understood that they actually managed to build an 80s Italian car, in looks and style. But putting an American engine in it, especially a lousy HT4100… Northstar was a good effort but it was still a cross-balanced V8 with a deep rumble, not a high revving longitudinal I6 of 3 liters or below.

and true sins:
1. Catera – a rebadged top of the line Opel, which had nothing in common with Cadillac, not even design cues. At least the Cimarron tried.
2. Cimarron – no comments needed, we all know and remember.
3. killing off the RWD large convertible in 1970 in favour of the 71-76 pimpmobile of an Eldorado. – yes the 71′ saw the lowered compression engines, but that lowering was across the board, so 472 and 500 were still a lot more cubes to burn the tires than BOP 455s. Maybe i am biased because for me the 68-70 deville convertible actually is still in competition with the current RR drophead and Bentley Brooklands/Azure. As in the luxury is in bulk and power (e.g. ability to smoke the tires) and a 472/500 built to modern breathing and fuel actually is equal to the “six and three-quarter liter” whichever.
4. not putting the Sixteen into small scale production – yes i understand that in modern GM’s idea “limited production” means “we make either 500 of them a year or we don’t make ’em at all” but Cadillac hasn’t had a decent halo car for nearly 50 years. Its about time for one. I love the XLR/XLR-V, despite Mercedes making a lot better a retractable hardtop muscle car (the SL500/SL55AMG), but the only thing “halo” about it was the pricing.